Cher’s Royalties Lawsuit Against Sonny Bono’s Widow Can Move Forward, Judge Says; Billboard, March 17, 2023

BILL DONAHUE, Billboard; Cher’s Royalties Lawsuit Against Sonny Bono’s Widow Can Move Forward, Judge Says

"Sonny and Cher started performing together in 1964 and married in 1967, rising to fame with major hits like “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.” But the pair split up in 1974, finalizing their divorce with a settlement agreement in 1978. Under that deal, Sonny retained ownership of their music rights, but Cher was granted a half-share of all royalties.

Bono died in 1998 as the result of a skiing accident, leaving Mary in control of those copyrights. And in 2016, she invoked the termination right — a provision of the federal Copyright Act that allows creators or their heirs to win back control of rights they signed away decades prior. Mary sent such notices to Sonny and Cher’s publishers, taking back full control of those copyrights.

Five years later, Cher filed her lawsuit — seeking a ruling that the divorce agreement was still in effect and that she was still owed her 50% cut of royalties, regardless of who owns the copyrights now. Mary then fired back a few months later, arguing that the case should be dismissed. Her lawyers said that termination rights were designed to trump all preexisting agreements, including a divorce agreement.

“Cher’s position would subvert Congress’ intent in enacting the copyright termination provisions: to ensure that authors and authors’ heirs, not grantees or ex-spouses, would benefit from the extended term of copyright,” Bono’s attorneys wrote in December 2021."

Getting Your Grooves Back: Understanding Copyright Termination (Guest Column); Variety, July 10, 2017

Evan S. Cohen, Esq., Variety, Getting Your Grooves Back: Understanding Copyright Termination (Guest Column)

"There is a powerful law causing quiet yet uneasy waves in the music industry, and it’s something the record companies would rather recording artists not know about.

For recordings released after 1977, the law is a section of the Copyright Act that allows recording artists to terminate their record contracts after 35 years. It also allows songwriters to terminate their music publishing deals after 35 years. It’s usually called copyright termination, but it’s not the copyrights that are being terminated, it’s the grant of rights to the record company that is being terminated. That old, awful record contract from 1980? Gone — at least as the contract applies to the United States. On the first day of the 36th year, the band owns the recording, free and clear. That is a very powerful position, to say the least."

Don Henley Urges Artists to Know Their Rights; New York Times, 8/16/11

Larry Rohter, New York Times; Don Henley Urges Artists to Know Their Rights:

"Q.[Larry Rohter] You and Sheryl Crow went to Washington back in 1999 and 2000 and convinced Congress to undo language classifying sound recordings as “works for hire,” which had just been inserted stealthily into another, unrelated bill. Back then, were you already looking ahead to today, when artists would have the right to reclaim ownership of their recordings, at the expense of record labels?

A. [Don Henley] The termination issue was certainly part of it. We were concerned with a lot of issues in recording contracts that we considered to be unfair, and this was one of the most glaring. We knew that 2013 was going to be a deadline, and that recordings from 1978 would be the first battle. But let’s go back and talk about the history of work for hire for a minute. “Work for hire” was never intended to apply to sound recordings. That came about because of movies and books. Sound recordings somehow got added to the list, then taken off again."

Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights; New York Times, 8/15/11

Larry Rohter, New York Times; Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights:

"Congress passed the copyright law in 1976, specifying that it would go into effect on Jan. 1, 1978, meaning that the earliest any recording can be reclaimed is Jan. 1, 2013. But artists must file termination notices at least two years before the date they want to recoup their work, and once a song or recording qualifies for termination, its authors have five years in which to file a claim; if they fail to act in that time, their right to reclaim the work lapses."

Obama admin: time to make radio pay for its music; Ars Technica, 4/2/10

Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Obama admin: time to make radio pay for its music:

"The recording industry scored a significant victory today with news that the Obama administration will provide its "strong support" for the Performance Rights Act. The bill would force over-the-air radio stations to start coughing up cash for the music they play; right now, the stations pay songwriters, but not the actual recording artists.

This has been a dream of the recording industry for decades, but it has taken on new importance as the revenues from recorded music have plummeted over the last decade. The broadcasters refer to the idea as a new "tax" that will largely benefit foreign record companies such as Universal (France), Sony (Japan), and EMI (UK).

Taking sides

Today, a letter from the Commerce Department's general counsel, Cameron Kerry, makes clear which side has the administration's support: the recording industry. (We double-checked with Kerry's office; this is no April Fools' joke.)

"The Department has long endorsed amending the US copyright law to provide for an exclusive right of public performance of sound recordings," says the letter. It pledges "strong support" for the current bill and approves the idea that radio's payment exemption is nothing more than "an historical anomaly that does not have a strong policy justification."

A copy of the letter was sent to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the letter, Kerry says that making radio pay for music is really a matter of fairness—not just to artists, but to Internet webcasters and satellite radio, too.

That's because both webcasters and the satellite radio folks currently do have to pay a public performance right on the music they play; the exclusion granted to over-the-air broadcasters thus distorts the market and makes it difficult for new technologies to gain traction. "It would also provide a level playing field for all broadcasters to compete in the current environment of rapid technological change, including the Internet, satellite, and terrestrial broadcasters," says the letter.

In addition to rationalizing the performance rights scheme in the US, Commerce points out that the US is the only major industrialized country to have such an exemption for over-the-air radio. Making a change isn't just a case of bowing to peer pressure; real money is at stake, since many artists are unable to collect the public performance money due them in other countries because of "the lack of reciprocal protection under US copyright law.""

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/obama-admin-make-radio-pay-for-its-music.ars

Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing; ZDNet, 10/25/09

Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing:

"The battle against online piracy is heating up: a new artist led initiative is taking on the diplomatic and negotiation approach whereas governments and legislators are hitting down punitive policies on their citizens.

Jon Newton of p2pnet, alongside Billy Bragg, musician and director of the Featured Artists Coalition, have begun work on a2f2a.com, a campaign started to discuss how artists can cut out the middleman - such as the suicide inducing RIAA - and ensure artists are fairly remunerated.

Along with their mission statement, the efforts seem to be focused towards not only admitting there is no technological solution to the problems artists already face, but that users would be “willing to pay for music if they can be sure that the money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.”"

http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3168

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times, 8/4/09

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times:

"Terrestrial radio is the only radio platform that still doesn’t have to pay these royalties. Internet radio and satellite radio pay artists when they play their records, so do cable television music channels. In fact, AM and FM radio stations that stream their signal online pay performance royalties.

The United States is one of a small number of countries where artists and musicians are not compensated when their music is played on over-the-air radio. Because the United States doesn’t have performance royalties, radio stations in countries that do collect them do not have to pay American artists. In many of these countries, American artists make up as much as 50 percent of radio airplay, and this prevents millions of dollars — industry estimates are $100 million a year — from flowing into our economy.

I believe in a performance royalty because recording artists and musicians from every generation deserve to be compensated for their art."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/opinion/04sinatra.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=sinatra&st=Search